Talk:Curse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Paranormal Portal

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Mythology Portal

This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

1 RE: Esoteric Curse discussion in first part
2 Pls add
3 Curse List
4 Cursed People Discussion
5 Cursed News Group Discussion
6 Protected
7 Newsgroup Mediation
8 Curses in the Qur'an and Bible
9 Unprotecting
10 Related RfC
11 Wikipedia Curse lifted by Admins
12 Celtic curses
13 Is there anyway to Reverse a Curse

[edit] RE: Esoteric Curse discussion in first part

I am to blame. Any comment? --John Meghly Xgenei 21:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

lol, look what i found [1] --Striver 05:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pls add

hex redirects here. Can we mention briefly the etymology?

Please sign your comments. Rarr 00:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curse List

Is this list of curses really necessary? It seems like just a big list of diseases, practices, and uncontrollable events, and also its inclusion is somewhat POV. I've left it in for now but it may be a good idea to remove it at some point. Rarr 00:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. The article is about curses in general and so it seems to me that the lists of kinds of curses (sorted both by culture of origin and by type of social venue in which the curse occurs) is the meat of the article. Curses are not about "uncontrollable events" in any case -- they are statements of intention. I deleted the long Christian screed today, however, in case you are interested. It was basically off-topic as it did not deal with a curse but rather with "sin." Catherineyronwode 03:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the list in general - more to the list in specific. Notice I said "this list of curses" rather than any list of curses. The revised list is good. Rarr 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cursed People Discussion

The phrase "failed to die" seems to be opinionated to the degree that R.R. was "trying" to die. Ste4k 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cursed News Group Discussion

Message to person at 88.105.251.105 Added the cursed news group section. Is there some contention about this edit? Ste4k 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Message to 88.105.251.105: Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ste4k 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with curse. Your additions have nothing to do with the heading "Cyrse" and are your personal POV on what is occurring on a newsgroup that does not have any relevence here.Settersr 19:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the entry meets the specification of the defintion of "Curse" since it is a supernatural occurance. Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ste4k 19:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is unverifiable. Unless you can provide verification then I object.Settersr 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Verification is provided at the external link and is beyond the scope of this page. Ste4k 20:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have placed it under fraudulent curses and attached tags to it. Placing content in wikipedia to promote your newsgroup or some other non-neutral POV is against wikipedia policiesSettersr 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved your POV tags to the top of the page since your POV matches all of the various sub-topics. I inserted the sub category Cursed New Groups since it hasn't anything to do with fraud. Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. UseNet groups aren't owned or operated by any specific individual. The Google reference is more than likely to remain archivable for quite a long time. I am not associated with Google whatsoever. The reference is nuetral. If you would like to add a second source to balance the reference, that would be fine with me. Ste4k 20:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To 88.105.251.105: Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ste4k 20:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts are plain here. The purpose of this article is to describe the word "curse" and to give examples of the word. Any individual instance of a curse being verifiably true or not true is beyond the scope of this article and is for the reader to discern according to their own philosophy. There are people that believe that these curses are actually true, regardless of physical evidence that may contradict the notion, i.e. Ronald Reagen and the Curse of Tippecanoe. Therefore, I am removing the neutrality warning at the top of this page. It is evident that there is a factual instance of a curse on that news group and whether one believes in curses or not is irrelevant. It might be a good idea to give that particular curse it's own article, however, so that the various people that mention it over a period of a decade could be cited. Ste4k 21:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if an article on that news group is written, then the external link to Google could be removed. Ste4k 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This section of the article has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand. The section is therefore neutral and unbiased and the NPOV warning is incorrect here. Your reasons for adding it were that several people object to the addition, however, you fail to mention those people and their reasons for the objection here in discussion. The NPOV warning, therefore, is unwarranted, and should be removed. Ste4k 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Per the portion that says: "The troll, thus obsessed, swore vengeance and cursed the news group to be ruined by his presence for the remainder of his life." Since the troll posted this himself, and is speaking about himself and the news group, it appears to meet the criterion of "Self-published sources in articles about themselves". Is this the reason you feel it is unverifiable? Ste4k 21:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is unverifiable because it is uknown people chatting on a news group -- this does not constitute factual information that can be independantly verified.Settersr 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the article here is "curse" and the sub topic is "news group". What other source of factual information that people believe that a curse exists would you suggest? It is apparent objectively from the outside perspective that people in that news group believe it to be cursed. Ste4k 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This section appears to be verifiable as a self-published source in articles about themselves. reference Ste4k 22:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To Sdedeo: Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ste4k 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, your continual addition of nonsense to this article is annoying and silly. I've dropped you a line on your talk page, but just to be clear, in case you were in doubt: curses are not real. People cannot "curse" newsgroups causing people's deaths or whatever it is you allege. Your stuff violates both commonsense and WP:V, which is why I removed it. Sdedeo (tips) 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo: Whether or not curses actually exist is irrelevant. Your reasoning would hope to justify the removal of the entire page on "curse". Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ste4k 23:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, the passage you keep reverting claims that there is a real, existing curse on a newsgroup. This is very silly. The rest of the article discusses notable "curses" in a dispassionate fashion. I have reported you for violation of 3RR. Sdedeo (tips) 23:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, whether or not you believe in curses is irrelevant to the entry. It is no more or less "silly" than any other curse listed on this page. I have requested a mediator to discuss the matter of verifiability. Ste4k 23:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:V: can you provide a reasonable source for this "curse". Newsgroup posts are not sufficient; is there an article on this in a magazine or newspaper?
WP:WEB: can you demonstrate that this content is in any way notable? Has it been the subject of attention outside of the group itself?
Common sense: can you rewrite this passage so that it doesn't actually claim that the newsgroup really is cursed? (!)

Sdedeo (tips) 23:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo: Again, all of the curses listed on this page fall into the category you describe. I have, however, reworded the entry and suggest that if you find it to be objectionable, that you discuss the matter rather than vandalize the page.

WP:RS: Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is:

relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation: relevant to the notability of that group or organisation; not contentious; not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources; about the subject, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic, subject to the limited exceptions discussed above.

I have invited mediation over this section for a better, more experienced interpretation of verifiability. Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ste4k 23:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ste4k -- you have not addressed my concern about notability or verifiability. Congrats on rephrasing the paragraph so as not to claim the existence of a real live internet curse. Good luck with your mediation. Sdedeo (tips) 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo: The issue of verifiability is exactly what needs to be further specified here. From an objective viewpoint, this case appears to fall into a gray area, and should be left to Wikipedia to resolve any possible contradictions within their own documentation. Misinterpretation of that documentation per a NewsGroup may or may not be a special case, but is certainly something they should review. If this article reaches their attention, they may wish to alter those guidelines. I discuss the matter of verifiability earlier in this discussion above. Ste4k 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A single newsgroup posting is absolutely not a reliable source. ("Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.") Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The post itself is an aggregation of several posts, however, it does not cover all of the topic sufficiently. I can see your point in removing the external link, however, removal of the entire topic appears to be only refusal to recognize a simple fact. Is it common for people to simply remove entire sections merely because they haven't investigated the facts? I am reinserting the section and moving the warning appropriately. Please read the discussion above about a creating an additional article to further source this section. Thank you. Ste4k 01:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Zetawoof: The UseNet newsgroup alt.religion.angels exists and may be verified by whatever means one prefers.

The users on that newsgroup believe the newsgroup is cursed. The users themselves are being cited at large and not specifically. The clause in the verification guidelines which specifically states that UseNet posts are not verification, justifies itself on the reason that the individuals cannot be used as reputable sources for their content since their identities cannot be verified. These users are being cited in this section as a group, however, and they are just as verifiable as a group of people as the newsgroup, and UseNet are verifiable. They exist.

No particular users of the group are being used to verify what they are saying. The observation is being made about them all in general. In this section they are referred to as a group which in fact exists. Since it is their own claim that they are cursed, verification rests upon their references to themselves as discussed in #W:RS

I am still digging into this, but so far the following have been found. The reference to the external link was an aggregate of other posts. If people think it should be removed, that's fine by me.

Ste4k 04:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The posts you're referencing don't support your claim that the users on alt.religion.angels believe that the newsgroup is "cursed". Most of them just contain the word "curse" in some other context. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

i dont see what the big deal is. why do you all keep insisting that ste4ks contribution should be deleted? its about a curse in the curses section what more do you want?do you want him do validate the curse?prove that is real?the second ste4k does that ill have proof that god exists. so according to you alls logic we should tak down all wikis bases on god,angels,and religion in general.until you all do then you dont have any right to delete ste4ks wiki.

Sdedeo: regarding your comment, "People cannot "curse" newsgroups causing people's deaths or whatever it is you allege." Perhaps the entry needs rewording, however, the subject matter involves the supernatural presence and the troll whom are "at odds" and that he is cursed because she will not allow him to rest and/or the newsgroup is cursed because of the two of them. She did not die because of reading the newsgroup, she apparently died of natural causes.

Zetawoof: Those are only the siftings from a large pool of others after running a Google scan on curse in the newsgroup. Some were selected since they refer to the group and others werer selected since they serve to define what the group itself considers to be a "curse". At best, they are leads in an investigation which is currently underway. I have begun going through the threads in a backwards direction to find various sources. This group has been around for approximately a decade.

Zetawoof: The external link itself references posts made by other sources. Would you like to help dig through this from the other direction? (time-wise)

No. The burden is on you to prove that the users of the newsgroup believe that the newsgroup is "cursed", and that this belief is notable. So far, I have seen nothing to suggest either one. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Before I waste an enormous amount of time trying to meet an unspecified goal, would you mind telling me

how many posts over what period of time involving how many users would be acceptable for your defintion of "users of a newsgroup believe"? Ste4k 05:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Zetawoof: A clear distinction for an NPOV here is not that the users believe that the newsgroup is cursed, but that the users of that group know about the curse. i.e. it is not important that a number of people believe that the Hope Diamond is cursed, but that they know about the curse. The purpose of the article is not to specify whether curses in fact "work", but only to describe several of them. Please be aware of what the investigation here is about specifically. Thanks. Ste4k 05:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary states that a curse is: An appeal or prayer for evil or misfortune to befall someone or something. (dictionary.com)

An appeal or prayer can exist without fruition and still satisfy being a curse regardless of any real experienced effects under this definition. If even the poster on the newsgroup believes that the group is cursed himself, that in itself constitutes a user of the newsgroup believing that the group is cursed. 69.229.149.19 06:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) kem

Shortcut: WP:RS

The criteria of a reliable source is met by the following definition:

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

There is no reasonable doubt that the group aknowledges the topic matter exists and that the

source of the material may be found on UseNet.

relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation:

a) relevant to the notability of that group or organisation;

The matter of a curse on alt.religion.angels is relevant to the notability of that group as attested

by the frequent use and discussion of curses on that group as even a warning for the general public

to read its content with care.

b) not contentious;

From an objective NPOV, the matter of whether or not curses exist and/or work is irrelevant. What is

relevant is taking note of the fact as an example of a type of curse. The topic of "curse" as a page

points out some rather bizarre notions that people believe, but to remain NPOV is only to acknowledge

the existence of such notions rather than to determine whether they do in fact affect the physical

environment. It has been pointed out that members of the group alt.religion.angels do in fact acknowledge

the topic matter of a curse and discuss it, regardless of the various opinionated viewpoints that any

of the members of that group contend.

c) not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;

The matter of a curse on the alt.religion.angels serves no known purpose to that group.

The content matter within that group is public domain and is generally considered to

be unverifiable per any specific post.

d) not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources;

There are no known reliable, third-party published sources that deny the existence of a curse.

e) about the subject, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject.

The material is about the subject curse, and is written in regards to the group itself.

Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic, subject to the limited exceptions discussed above.

This source for this section is a source which discusses the group itself and meets the limited exceptions discussed

above as well.

Ste4k 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the length, I'll try not to be so verbose all the time. First, I'd just like to recognize and celebrate your good-faith efforts as a new user -- too often, we forget to encourage people to be bold, and instead concentrate solely on what they're doing wrong. That can get to be disheartening, and I see that nobody ever did leave you a proper welcome message, on your talk page (I went ahead and did that). Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions, or if there's anything I might be able to do, in good faith, to try and improve your experience as a new user. That said, I would like to contribute a few points/questions to the discussion.

Are you sure the edits you reverted were vandalism? The criteria offered at WP:VAN are actually pretty specific: any edit that might have been in good faith, any time the editor is attempting to improve the quality of Wikipedia, generally can't be considered simple vandalism. That's not to say it's okay to revert huge chunks of text with no prior discussion or consensus, just the issue there is more that "simple vandalism" carries with it a lot of policy implications, and we need to be careful about when we bring those into play.
Is this the best place to be putting your proposed content? While anyone seeking information on your particular UseNet group would undoubtedly want to know more about the curse in question, is that the sort of information that anyone looking up "curse" will be interested in? Perhaps a better way of putting it, while any given curse is probably notable in the context of its particular subject, very few curses are truly relevant and notable in an article about every curse, ever. Does that make some sense?
If the forum/UseNet group itself is notable, you might consider writing a brief article about it, which could then (pretty much without question) include a section on this curse. This part's a bit tricky, though; as we can see at WP:WEB, the guidelines for website notability are fairly strict (though not, by my understanding, absolute). The solution that comes to mind is trying to see if there's an overarching article about a variety of UseNet groups, where you could perhaps add a section (if not, such an article strikes me as being potentially useful and expandable). If you do opt to do so, you may wish to read WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO. I can't promise this will go over well with other editors, but it seems to be a decent idea for a starting point towards compromise.

So. I hope that does some good. As I said, feel free to drop something off at my talk page if you have any questions. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this situation, you do have my thanks for your efforts to contribute. Luna Santin 08:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again for the gift, Luna, I will address your questions point by point if that's okay.

The vandal here that I referred to is not the editors who have been discussing the article, but the person who originally and continuously has simply been blanking the proposed addition without any comment. 88.105.251.105. Please note that the addition was originally at [[2]]

* Being brand new it took me five edits to come up with [[3]]

* Later that day the vandal blanked out the entry without any explanation. At that time, I did not know that it was a vandal. I read the documentation and it suggested taking the issue to talk, which I did. That in itself took several edits to learn how to sign correctly. I reverted the page by hand at that time a full day later than the addition.

* Not knowing the reason for the blank, and assuming good faith, I assumed that the content was too small and hadn't any explanation. So I added several lines to the section [[4]]

* A few hours later the "blanker" again removed the entry without any explanation. [[5]]

* Eleven hours later, I noticed that the entry had been removed. I did not know that the warnings were supposed to be put on the user's page, instead I put them on this talk page up above, and then edited the entry some more for better wording. [[6]]

* Seven minutes after my final edit on that section, he again, without any explanation blanked the page. [[7]]

* About an hour later, I saw that it was blanked, so I reverted it again, and also tried better wording. [[8]]

* Somebody else, edited the folk use section, but the vandal came by and removed the section again, unexplained. [[9]]

* I again added the section back (by hand, not knowing how to revert yet) [[10]]

* Settersr then came and reverted it, deleting it based on "vandalism", and no other explanation. [[11]]

This was my welcome to the world of Wiki, and indirectly the cause of the 3RR that I received.

2 You asked, "Is this the best place to be putting your proposed content?" and you made some suggestions. I haven't any particular care about the placement. You do seem to agree with other people, though, that this is "my newsgroup" rather than simply any old newsgroup. The thing that I am having difficulty understanding about that POV is that the topic is specifically a curse. Some people say up above that it is "silly", "nonsense", and "bizarre" which from my perspective, relates to curses in general. The addition would make this page more interesting to show the diversity of various kinds of bizarre things people might believe in. I was hoping to later add at least a blurb to the "Video Cassette" page which is listed in the links, but not introduced. If this is the incorrect perspective, though, I am certainly open to suggestion.

3 UseNet already has a page, but this particular newsgroup is just as notable as any other newsgroup. From a NPOV they are all the same, isn't this true? Per writing a page about the various newsgroups, if I understood you correctly, that would not only be complete opinion, but probably be practically impossible (given a few years). I think the fact that the newsgroup exists is verifiable, however, according to the reasons that people have given, citing the WP:VER, even writing an article that says that a newsgroup exists is only physically verifiable, but not verifiable per the reason they give that the sources cannot be proven to be any person in particular. It does seem appropriate to me, however, that the authors of the documentation considered such actual entities such as newsgroups to be self published sources, i.e. a group of people that is verifiably there. Supposing that there were 10,000 more people that wanted to simply take up the idea of briefly describing various newsgroups. They would not be able to verify their existence according to the POV of the editors that find the proposed addition to be unverifiable; and yet, they exist. In any case, it really doesn't matter which group this is, per the topic of a curse, as one editor above mentioned, they acknowledge that the group itself is associated with a curse. The matter of whether some of them believe in curses or not is irrelevant. The relevance is that a group of people know about a curse, such as the Hope Diamond, or any of the other curses listed, and establishing whether such a thing is "real" would be against NPOV. Ste4k 10:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One note here about WP:WEB and regarding an article about the newsgroup in particular. According to WP:WEB Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: (listing only one here) 3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. In this specific case, the newsgroup is broadcast/published by Google at [[12]]. Ste4k 16:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've protected this article to force all involved participates to use the talk page to discuss the disputed items rather than revert-warring. Please let me know once a compromise or agreement has been reached, or request unprotection. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newsgroup Mediation

I'm from the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal, as a mediation request was made at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-18_Cursed_Newsgroup_-_self-published_source?. A few notes:

I'm just another ordinary Wikipedian, but a neutral one, who I hope can help.
The process is entirely voluntary.
Nobody gets sanctioned, criticised, or rapped on the knuckles. All we're interested in is calming down the dispute and producing the best article we can.

If you want to pursue this, leave a message here. Please indent and sign ~~~~ all comments. Grobertson 14:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this case, and I think that much has been deliberated here. The issue is sticky in a gray area between a self published source and that source being a portion of UseNet and unreliable. I interpret the two areas of WP:RS, specifically "Self published sources in articles about themselves" and "Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet" as two separate things which do not rely upon each other for support. The reference that I included was a single post which spoke about the group itself and is discussed in notes above. Earlier before the page was frozen, before a vandal blanked the entry, the entry still existed, and an applicable warning was on top for verification. I would like to see the article expanded as discussed above. I was unaware that admins were easily accessed, and SHOULD have requested one before the vandal made this an issue in the first place. Other issues with actual editors were basically misunderstandings on their parts as well as my own. The remaining issue, then, is whether a newsgroup may be construed as a group of individuals posting about the group, or whether they are considered to be only completely unreliable individuals regardless of what group they post their unreliable information. Ste4k 16:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental issues I see with that section being in the article are that the claims being made in the article don't match with the sources being cited, and that the material is unencyclopedic in any case. For reference, the text in question was:

The news group alt.religion.angels is claimed to be cursed by an Internet troll that appeared approximately one year after it's inception. The troll's original intentions were to attempt to fool the particpants into believing that he was speaking on a regular basis with angels. The attempt was foiled almost immediately by one of the regular participants who died before the troll could satisfy either his claims or make apologies. The troll, thus obsessed, swore vengeance and cursed the news group to be ruined by his presence for the remainder of his life. Participants of that news group claim that the troll himself has been cursed to remain by the ghost of the former participant whom won't allow him to rest until his apologies have been made.

and cited this post as its sole source. The post in question uses the word "curse" twice. Both incidences used the word metaphorically to describe a person as being a "curse" to the group - i.e. an undesirable and malevolent element. The other sources cited here on the talk page have used the word in similarly unrelated contexts. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curses in the Qur'an and Bible

There are 47 instances of Curses in the Koran which should be looked into. Ste4k 16:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC) There are 218 instances of Curses in the Bible which should be looked into. Ste4k 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good idea, those might be very interesting. I don't know enough about them, and I bet there'd be people interested in that. That could grow to be quite a long section, so personally I'd recommend summarizing the most notable ones here, while providing a link to a so-called "main article." (For instance, Curses in the Koran and Curses in the Bible could both probably be articles just on their own, there's a lot of material.) Um, I'm bad at explaining this, but there's an example here which I hope makes sense. Possibly there are already articles relevant to those, I'll post a link if I happen to find them. Luna Santin 05:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Are those actual instances of curses being proclaimed, or is that a count of the number of times the word "curse" is used? There's a big difference. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to help, please feel free. As mentioned, they should be looked into. This page is very weak and I'd like to see it expanded. The Section on the Bible has some interpretation of curse, but few examples. The section about the Koran appears from a OPOV as a token addition. By the way, I'd like to point out that your definition of "curse" appears to be opinionated from two different perspectives, (Christian and Judaic per the article itself). We should strive to have an NPOV about how such things are described. The section on Sports related curses in the second half contains entries which are not cited. That you would purposely feel that a UseNet curse was any more or less notable or credible than those entries shows bias on your part since they were not also removed. The section on Fraudulent Curses should be moved to disambiguation imho. I see no reason whatsoever to lean toward any religious POV about the topic matter, and from an objective POV believe that the cursed video tape should share the section with the Hope Diamond. They each have their own page to further explain what each of them are. And this article should serve as a stem for the several branches of curses rather than what appears to be available in a dictionary. Ste4k 09:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

This article has been protected for ages and ages, and there has been no discussion for weeks and weeks. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k includes mention of activity on this article. Interested users are invited to comment. -Will Beback 21:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Curse lifted by Admins

Just to note that the curse of User:Ste4k on Wikipedia was lifted on 29th July 2006 when she/he was banned indefinately. The curse of User:Ste4k was one of the most deadly of modern times and had driven many previously sane contributors completely bonkers. King Tutankhamun was unavailable for comment. Colin4C 10:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic curses

Clearly, the Celtic curses here mentioned are a mix of Wiccan beliefs and Irish modern (post Middle Age) folklore. The link with their assumed Celtic background / origin has not been established. I mean, really not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.139.246.233 (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Is there anyway to Reverse a Curse

I'm studying up on if there are ways of reversing the cause and effects of a curse. Please comment.

There is nothing to reverse because curses aren't real. --Meridius (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a personal opinion. I won't tell you that your personal beliefs on religion are incorrect, so please return the favor. To the original Poster, I am trying to find an answer to this as well. Any help is greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.151.18 (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)